"Islamophobes"

There's no such thing. Why is it irrational to be opposed to Islam?

SamB: 'This is the most sensible question you have asked'

So you've been ranking my questions in terms of sensibility ... it's like the Top of Pops.

Like me give you a run down of the sensibility of your answers! Actually Sam I appreciate the way you have answered my questions.

I don't think it comes down to 'right' but rather to what people feel. I've already demonstrated that this concept of bodily autonomy right doesn't override everything else. For instance, it is not applicable to children nor is it applicable to the clothes that you wear. Nor is it applicable to people who are deemed mentally unfit.

So you have to ask the question, "Why isn't the right of bodily autonomy applicable in all cases?' The answer is because this right has come from how people feel, and different people feel differently in different circumstances.

I feel that a woman should not be able to abort a baby at 8 months and I'm sure that the vast majority of people in the world feel the same way. Therefore you could say because it is a universal human feeling it is a Universal Human Right.

Baby-trading is better than abortion. For the baby at least.

"Still having problems with answering questions I see. "

Liar.

You really can't deal with debate, can you? You made an offer: I answer one of your questions and you said you would "respond to the rest of your stuff when you've answered that question".

Well, I answered that question days ago. And so far, your response has been to lie, to squirm, to lie more, to whimper that I'm calling you names - to do ANYTHING but engage me in debate. You just can't do it, can you, diddums?

With regards to the provisos I stick by what I said.. I think I don't have to keep on repeating myself in a thread. I said it once .. I don't have to keep repeating myself. You don't do it. It's not needed.

With regards to me questioning late term abortion I wait until you give me a more comprehensive answer to my question regarding infanticide. Saying it is awful isn't really saying anything. Do you think it should be allowed and do you think the person responsible should be prosecuted?

You'll probably avoid giving me straight answers as you have done in the past. Or you'll just ignore the question and start calling me names again. You wont give me a straight answer.

@SamB: 'The fetus does have a right to bodily autonomy. This right, however, is overridden by the right to bodily autonomy of the person carrying the fetus.'

The blood analogy isn't the same because there are other people able to give the blood. Indeed I would support complusory state blood conscription if blood supplies were dangerously low. For the same reason why I support finger printing and DNA testing... the greater good in some cases is more important than an individual's claim of bodily autonomy.

Back to the 6/7/8 month old fetus bodily autonomy versus the woman's bodily autonomy. I've said before that if the woman is going to die then the woman should be allowed to abort to live. But if the woman is not going to die then surely the right of the unborn baby to live takes precedence over the woman's bodily autonomy? Surely the right to live is greater than the right to feel comfortable. Indeed you could argue that the woman is mentally unfit if she wants to abort after 6 months .. what rational person would kill an unborn baby that is so far developed?

If you've said to me you've answered these question can you tell me exactly where because I can't find. Besides they are new questions so it is highly unlikely that you have answered them.

You would think that women got pregnant in the same way as the Holy Virgin. Don't any of you girls have the TEENIEST responsibiity? Or are you all so stupid it is entirely the fault of the man? Or indeed any man at all.

'diddums'; I haven't been called that before. That's a new one for my collection. Thanks .. anymore?

I presume you're an American?

Why shouldn't I interfere in your life if my life involves me interfering into your life? If my life is interfering into your life what right have you to stop me? Don't interfere into my life, it's my life! It's my decision to interfere into your life. That's my decision.

"Baby-trading is better than abortion"

If you're a man who stands to make a fortune brokering babies, sure, nice for you.

The reality is, though, that the choice women make when safe legal abortion is denied them is between illegal abortion and infanticide.

Once the baby is born, only monsters want to take the baby away from her or his mother, against the mother's will, in order to give the baby to some wealthier couple. It happened, and it happens over and over again, but it's still something monstrous.

How you can tell prolifers are monstrous misogynists: they propose forced pregnancy, forced childbirth, and forced adoption as an "alternative" to safe legal abortion.

And actually, from historical and current records, I'm unsure if infanticide is really a "choice" women make, as a choice made for them when they weren't able to safely abort or to support a baby.

Prior to the development of effective contraception and safe legal abortion, in the bad old prolife days, infanticide was routinely practiced in every culture in the world - including the UK.

@Mr. Divine

- "The blood analogy isn't the same because there are other people able to give the blood."

I stated CLEARLY in that analogy that you're the only person who can give blood to keep this person alive. You criticised and mocked Yomnei for not answering your questions yet you're doing the same here avoiding questions posed to you.

- "I... support complusory state... conscription if blood supplies were dangerously low...I support finger printing and DNA testing... the greater good in some cases is more important than an individual's claim of bodily autonomy."

Yes, because all great things begin with force and coercion.

- "Back to the 6/7/8 month old fetus bodily autonomy versus the woman's bodily autonomy... surely the right of the unborn baby to live takes precedence over the woman's bodily autonomy?"

Why does it take precedence? And, why does it take precedence 6/7/8 months into the pregnancy but not, for example, 5 months into the pregnancy? There are two questions here. Answer both, please.

- "what rational person would kill an unborn baby that is so far developed?"

I have ALREADY made this point. I have already told you that even if there wasn't a time limit on abortion, that in practice, such abortions, 36 weeks into pregnancy for instance, not for medical necessity but mere change of heart, would rarely, if ever, take place. And if you accept this point, as you seem to have, since you argue that only a mentally ill person would have an abortion that far into a pregnancy, why are you making a big deal out of it?

SamB: I didn't say only a mentally ill person would have an abortion after 6 months ... I said "You could argue that." That's different.. you should have studied semantics like I did rather than waste your time on poxy law studies.

Your questions and answers:
Why does it take precedence? Why does the right to live take precedence over the right to live comfortably? Because I feel that the right to live of an unborn baby is greater than the 'right' of a woman's bodily autonomy to terminate that life. It is what I feel. And I know that the vast majority of people in the world feel the same way as I do. So you can say it is a Universal Human Right of an unborn baby to be protected from the actions of someone else that will kill it because the vast majority of the world's population feel that it is.

Lou: You're right, she's politician who doesn't give a straight answer. I bet she wont answer your questions. She one of those airy fairy people who attack other people but doesn't say what she thinks. Then she claims she has won the debate ... what by running away!

No way will she answer those questions I and you posed. She has no backbone.

@Did: 'what exactly are the physical or mental health injuries which are threatening so many women and which result in them needing an abortion?'

There isn't any. It's a way to circumvent the law. The law was designed to allow abortion to protect injuries to mothers and to abort handicapped children. It wasn't supposed to be a lifestyle choice. However, some doctors are prepared to say there is injury potential .. some do it because they think it is 'OK' to have an abortion ... some do it to cover their own backside. Some doctors refuse to allow abortion for merely lifestyle reasons because of their religious beliefs.

I hope that answers your question Did?

Yonmei; I have already told you, try your best to remember I would allow an abortion at any stage if the oman was raped or/and her life was in danger. Please try to remember because your argument is always going to be flawed against me when you put up these straw men. And I would allow some necessary medical procedures to be free of charge. However unnecessary operations like breast implants and lifestyle abortions I wouldn't. They are lifestyle choices. And if people want, people pay for them. I'm not paying for your food.

What a nice person you are to steal from the labours of workers and give it to other people who are making lifestyle choices! People are SOoooo generous with other people's money. You are SUCH a nice person.

Lou: She's scared of me. She's like a caged animal. She can't answer me so she spits and yells. It's only natural when a person has done something 'wrong' to defend themselves in this manner.

Don't worry Yonmei, we all make mistakes. Sometimes the demons come back and hit us in our face in unexpected ways.

And don't worry about insulting me. I really do understand even though you may think I don't.

Mr Divine; "I feel that a woman should not be able to abort a baby at 8 months"

Abortions take place at eight months, on the rare occasions when they do, when and only when because if the fetus isn't aborted the woman could die.

That you "feel" that the woman shouldn't be "allowed" to live, demonstrates that you feel the right life is less important than your right to domineer over women.

Your desire that women should die exemplifies the irony of "Prolife" as a name for the movement against safe legal abortion.

Thanks, Yonmei, for your-intelligent and considered as ever-responses to my earlier post.
If I can pick up on a couple of points you made:
That prolifers are misogynists is obvious. Well, not really. They might be people-male or female-who have a different view on the values of life at different stages than you have. Incidentally, if a woman is "prolife"-whatever that means-is she a misogynist, or brainwashed, or just not as clever and enlightened as you?

And you didn't answer Mr D's hypothesis regarding termination at eight months. You avoided it by setting up a straw man hypothesis of your own.

You see this whole debate in the context of gender rights-can you not see that there is also an aspect of the debate that concerns more general humane values? Abortion involves ending a human life. A woman has the right to control her own fertility. Those are both true, but I think any kind of intellectual or moral paradox or dilemma is too much to handle for you. Go ahead and stew in your own self-righteous certainty: you're the mirror image of the type of Daily Mail bigot I'm sure you despise.

Marc was right in his comment earlier-NS articles concerning abortion seem to bring out a particularly ugly streak in some posters.

"I was at the birth of 3 of my children."

And this led you to your current position, that women should be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against their will. *shrug*

"And as anyone who has experienced that situation will tell you it is probably the most significant and beautiful time of your life"

But you were not being forced. Nor (I trust) were any of the women giving birth.

Your idea that this is exactly the same whether the woman has chosen to give birth or is being forced against her will, is like a man arguing "sex is significant and beautiful, so I'm going to rape you".

"You're just assuming what is right"

Well, yes, I guess. I'm "just assuming" force is wrong. I've never personally forced anyone.

"That's why you are arguing with your head full of book words"

No. I'm arguing with my head full of book words because I'm a highly literate person and this is how I argue.

"In turn I know what it is like to have a premature baby because she is with me everyday"

But that has nothing whatsoever to do with your claimed right to force women against their will. When your daughter grows up, do you want her to be forced? Or do you want her to be a free person with the right to make her own choices, to regard her own life, health, and wellbeing as important? Are you a bad father or a good one?

"I know that it would have been wrong to kill her in the womb"

Did her mother have to be forced against her will? If her mother chose to have her, then it would absolutely have been wrong for anyone to force abortion on her. Are you telling us your daughter was an unwanted baby? Because otherwise, this claim makes no sense.

"You don't know. You're ignorant."

Bless.

Yonmei: You keep on calling me a pro-lifer. Yet I would allow abortions up to the first 15 weeks... how can I be a pro-lifer?
I reckon the first 8 weeks is definitely OK to have an abortion. Between 8 and 15 I'm unsure. After 15, only if the baby is severely handicapped, or the woman is in grave danger of dying or serious injury, or if she has been raped. 24 weeks is too much like another person .. it's too far in. There has been enough time before 15 weeks to find out, say yes or no and act accordingly.

I've made it easy for you by saying 8 months.. you make the argument that no woman would do this even though it happens in third world countries. How about 26 weeks? If some women abort at 24 weeks then should they be allowed to at 26? Now you can't tell me no woman would do this. Would you allow it?

You can be as highly literate as you want but if you don't have experience of things you don't know what certain things feel like. Like Lou says, you can read volumes upon volumes about sex but if you have never had sex you will know jack shit. That what you know about this issue, jack shit. You're ignorant.

Lou: "All you said it was awful. That's not really an answer."

Now, now, don't YOU start lying. That's not all I said by a long chalk, is it?

"Do you think that infanticide should be allowed?"

No. (I presume you mean by "be allowed", "be legal". As the report I will link to at the end of my comment mentions, in the first twelve months of infancy, a small number of new mothers suffer mental imbalance and sometimes this leads to their killing their own baby. This can't be prevented except by forcible removal of the baby in the first twelve months from *all* mothers, and I trust we're not arguing for that.)

"Do you think that the person responsible for it should be prosecuted?"

People, usually. In the case I described, a number of people were responsible for the girl killing her baby - the doctor who denied her an abortion and the GP practice he would have belonged to, who sent a pregnant girl home and never did any follow-up checks to ensure, since they'd decided she should have a baby she didn't want, that she was at least receiving pre-natal care and counselling. They were clearly culpable: I don't know whether they could be prosecuted but I hope so.

Whether the girl was legally responsible or not I don't know: from her actions as described, it seems unlikely. As this BBC report notes, maternal infanticide is generally regarded as caused by mental unbalance after pregnancy and childbirth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/204322.stm

Mr Divine: ". Then she claims she has won the debate ... what by running away! "

Aw. Diddums. Did you feel abandoned? *there there*